Constantine wasn’t the problem. Here’s why that matters today.

16 min. to read.

Of course, Constantine¹Flavius Valerius Constantinus, Emperor of Rome from 272 -337 CE is worthy of criticism on many fronts. He was one of the earliest celebrity conversions we know of. He may have been the first high-profile person to convert to Christianity for purposes unrelated to Jesus. And certainly, He was a bloody, vindictive Emperor who used the violent power of his station to accomplish his ends. But many modern accusations pointed his way today are either inaccurate or require a bit more nuance than we prefer when it comes to our villains.

First, some record straightening: No, Constantine didn’t re-write the Bible.²The Jewish scripture already existed as a collection, and the books that make up the Christian Testament were all already circulating individually long before he came to power. He also did not declare which books would be included in the canon.³The earliest Christian Canon, or list of books that ought to be counted as scripture, is likely Marcion’s list, which dates to 140 CE. Origin, one of the Eastern Fathers, collected a list of books that the church in his area considered scripture in the late second century. Athanasius, perhaps the most important early Christian theologian, listed the books of scripture as canon in 367 CE. His list is essentially the same as the modern list. He didn’t invent Jesus’ divinity.⁴There is much too much written evidence to footnote here. Suffice it to say that the issue of the nature of Jesus’ divinity was one of the primary matters of discussion for the first four hundred years of the church. He didn’t write the Nicene Creed.⁵In fact, he leaned toward the Arian position, as did many of the Bishops. With all the power he wielded, it seems perhaps miraculous that the Nicene creed ended up being what it was. Even the claim that Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire isn’t accurate. So, what did he do? Well, understanding this requires a brief history lesson. Strap in.

Come on… History is fun!

For the first three hundred years, Christianity was looked down on from all sides. Christianity primarily attracted those low on the social ladder. In the earliest days in Palestine, followers of Jesus were sometimes persecuted by the religious and civil authorities in Jerusalem. Later, in particular times and places, they were persecuted by officers of the Roman Empire. The church had little cultural or political power in those first three centuries. Followers of Jesus in those early days weren’t thinking about “taking back Rome” or “making Palestine Great Again.”

That changed dramatically through a series of events spanning about eighty years. Some scholars, trying to represent this change with some nuance, call this the Constantinian Shift.⁶Jordan Woods coined this label in a 2013 paper. Wood, “Assession the ‘Constantinian Shift.’” Over this span of years, Christianity evolved from minority sect to state religion. Here’s how it happened.

The worst persecution of Christians happened under the reign of Emperor Diocletian (284-305 CE), spurred on by his general Galerius, a staunch defender of the traditional Roman gods and religion. When Diocletian abdicated, Galerius became Emperor of a large eastern portion of the Empire. In 311 CE, due to a change of heart or perhaps the changing political landscape, he issued the Edict of Serdica. This law granted Christianity the status of a legal religion (among many recognized religions). This was on the condition that Christians would pray for the safety of the Emperor and not do anything “contrary to good order.”⁷Read more, including the edit, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Serdica So, at this point, Christianity had no power, but at least people were not encouraged to persecute them.

Two years later, Constantine, already ruling a large western swath of the Empire, enters the picture with his dramatic victory at the Milvian Bridge,⁸More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge which he later attributed to God’s intervention. Licinius, who succeeded Galerius in the eastern region, was the chief obstacle to Constantine’s ambitions. In one of their many negotiations, Constantine convinced Licinius to agree to join him in granting religious liberty across the empire. This agreement has come to be called the Edict of Milan.

While the Edict of Milan mentioned Christians specifically, it had a broader intent: “to grant to Christians and to everybody the free power to follow the religion of their choice…” ⁹ More on this important document and the text here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan. The Edict of Milan went further than the Edict of Serdica because it also stipulated that those incarcerated due to their religion were to be released and that any property confiscated was to be returned.¹⁰Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, 107 So, even the famed Edict of Milan did not make Christianity the official state religion. It merely provided that Christians shouldn’t be persecuted for their faith and affirmed their right to own property.

Having credited his victory at the Milvian Bridge to the God of the Christians, Constantine privileged Christianity above the traditional Roman religion. There’s great controversy about whether Constantine truly converted or if he saw becoming a patron of Christianity as a way to undermine Licinius, who preferred the traditional Roman religion. Many scholars assume Constantine saw Christianity as a vehicle for providing centralized stability to his wide-ranging empire. Perhaps he really was a convert, but one who contextualized Christianity for himself in a way that made sense for an emperor of the known world.¹¹Gonzales suspects this: “For Constantine, the Christian God was a very powerful being who would support him as long as he favored the faithful. Therefore, when Constantine enacted laws in favor of Christianity, and when he had churches built, what he sought was not the goodwill of Christians, but rather the goodwill of their God.” Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation., 122.

In a couple of decades, it became clear that Constantine’s patronage of Christianity was a benefit anyone could access just by becoming Christian. The accouterments of imperial patronage were hard to ignore: land grants, buildings gifted, financial support, protection, a voice in civil government, and the accompanying interest of those who saw the way the wind was blowing and wanted to be on the side of imperial privilege. However, even with his preference for Christianity, Constantine refused to be baptized for most of his life, something unheard of in ancient Christianity. One theory is that Constantine refused baptism so as not to jeopardize his titular position as the head of the traditional Roman religion. So, while Constantine’s reign ended with Christianity becoming increasingly a Roman institution, it was still not yet the state religion.

There was a great deal of turmoil following Constantine’s death. In the years that followed, several men became emperor in rapid succession, each with different attitudes about Christianity. One of these was Julian, “The Apostate,” who tried to reduce the influence of Christianity by cutting subsidies to Church institutions and firing Christians working in the court. He’s responsible for one of my favorite ancient letters, where he complained to a High Priest of the traditional Roman religion, asking in a frustrated tone why Roman priests weren’t known for high morals and their care for the poor, like their Christian counterparts. He was angry that Christian priests had a better reputation among the common people than the priests of the ancient Roman religion!¹²Read the letter here: https://honorshame.com/a-revealing-letter-about-ancient-christianity/

Christianity’s status in the empire was finally settled in 380 CE, more than forty years after Constantine’s death. Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica. This is the edict that made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Going further, it determined that a particular theological stream of Christianity was the official religion. There was much controversy between Christians who accepted the Nicene Creed¹³Written in 325 CE, accepted in final form at the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE and those who did not, many of whom were Arians.¹⁴Arianism, named after Arius, was a theological stream of early Christianity that believed Christ was not co-eternal with the Father but a holy being, created before time. Although in the literature of the time, it was pretty common for the word “Arian” to be flung around and applied to nearly anyone with divergent theology. The Edict of Thessalonica declared that the Arian Christians and all others who didn’t accept the Nicene Creed were outside the bounds of those who followed the Orthodox faith, now identified as the Universal (or Catholic) church. As a result, Arians and others who would not accept Nicene doctrine were now considered both heretical, in regard to faith, and treasonous, in regard to citizenship. No such declaration had ever happened in church history before this, and even though Constantine laid the groundwork for it, it was not his doing.

The practical impact of this shift was powerfully illustrated just ten years later. In 390 CE, Bishop Ambrose of Milan successfully barred Emperor Theodosius I from entry to worship. He refused to offer the Eucharist to the Emperor until Theodosius had done penance for a vengeful massacre he had ordered. This penance included adopting a policy that any further public executions would be delayed thirty days from the time of judgment to allow time for reconsideration. When the emperor of the Roman emperor knelt on the church stairs and begged a local bishop for forgiveness, it was clear that Christianity had moved from the margins to the center. As a result, everything about the nature of faith and practice would be re-imagined from the vantage of privilege and power for the next thousand years.

Names and dates… ugh… what does it mean?

It took about a hundred years for this transition to be complete. Christianity shifted from being a minority community predicated on faith and belonging to being an easy path to power and influence. This shift married the violent power of the state with the Christian image of God in ways we are still untangling. The church moved from homes to basilicas. Church leadership moved from volunteers recognized for spiritual maturity to professionals. The Eucharist slowly moved away from being a community meal with sacred meaning to being a symbolic morsel that could only be offered by male priests. Women were no longer allowed in leadership.¹⁵It’s true! Women elders were banned at the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE. You don’t ban something that’s not happening. Also, notably, this same council required that priests rather than laypeople serve the Eucharist. This is the professionalization of the church. See the written canons of the council here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

These are massive changes. Arguably, they are changes that contradict the way of Jesus. And yet, can you see how Constantine isn’t the villain? He was influential in this process but didn’t do this to the church against the church’s will. We can blame Constantine for derailing the church’s trajectory if we want, but Constantine only did what powerful people always do. Powerful people have always sought to leverage every opportunity to preserve and grow their power. It’s part of what makes them powerful. It certainly is what keeps them in power. Constantine did what ought to be expected from the Emperor of Rome. He leveraged a quickly growing social movement to protect and solidify his power. That means that some fault—maybe most of the blame—must be laid elsewhere. After all, If you pick up the scorpion and don’t expect it to sting you, the fault doesn’t lie with the scorpion.

Our focus on Constantine obscures this: Whatever Constantine did or didn’t do, he did with the express agreement and participation of Christians of his time. If we think the Constantinian Shift led the church away from Jesus’s path, we must accept that the ones who stepped off that path were Christians of his time. Constantine didn’t betray Jesus; Christians did. We know this because they told us themselves. Eusebius, one of the most important early Christian historians and the source of much of what we know about the church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, was convinced that Constantine was God’s provision to rescue the church from persecution. Eusebius wrote a four-volume biography of Constantine that is gushing in its praise.

One quote: “As the sun, when he rises upon the earth, liberally imparts his rays of light to all, so did Constantine, proceeding at early dawn from the imperial palace, and rising as it were with the heavenly luminary, impart the rays of his own beneficence to all who came into his presence.”¹⁶ “Selections from Eusebius, Life of Constantine,” in World History Commons, https://worldhistorycommons.org/selections-eusebius-life-constantine. That sounds less like a historical account and more like a Tumbler Fan page. Eusebius declared that God had appointed Constantine for this moment.¹⁷“Thus then the God of all, the Supreme Governor of the whole universe, by his own will appointed Constantine, the descendant of so renowned a parent, to be prince and sovereign.” Opening a list of Constantine’s accomplishments, Eusebius wrote, “Consider the works of our Savior in our own age….“ To be clear, the person he references with the word Savior is Constantine, not Jesus.¹⁸https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2504.htm If that’s not heresy, I’m not sure what is.

How do we explain this? Were Eusebius and other Christians duped by Constantine? No! His injustice and immorality were not secret. Christians knew that the oppressive power of the Empire rested in Constantine’s hands. They hoped (or believed) that God brought Constantine onto their side so that the point of the imperial sword would no longer be aimed at the neck of Christians. Over the course of two or three generations, the church transitioned from a theology that named the Empire as anti-Christ (a theology laid out in John’s Revelation) to a theology that saw the empire and its violent power as a God-ordained keeper of order (as seen in Augustine’s Just War theology.)

It’s important to note that not every Christian embraced this new imperial church. Some saw the spiritual threats and moved to the wilderness. This can be seen most famously in the Egyptian Desert Fathers, who laid the groundwork for later monasticism. Others, like John Chrysostom, railed in sermon and letter against the excesses of greed, exploitation, and power that the church was falling into. And, of course, there were, in every town, anonymous followers of Jesus who did their best to love their neighbors as themselves, regardless of what the local prince or Bishop was up to. This minority voice has existed at every point in Christian history, and yet we cannot deny that certain Christians have been quick to adapt their faith to the structures of empire.

We face this same temptation today.

What happened with Constantine and the church is a temptation that followers of Jesus have faced ever since—and are facing again today. It seems natural to embrace the famous and the powerful when they are on our side.¹⁹The Book of James calls out Christians who give the best church seats to the wealthy. Apparently, this was a problem even before the imperial church existed. Indeed, the fortuitous presence of the rich and powerful can easily seem a blessing from the lord! Rather, it often leads to an unholy relationship between those in power who would disingenuously use the church for their purposes and certain Christians who believe the best way to move the church forward is through influence and power. These folks cite Bible texts to justify their dreams of “taking over” the government for Christ, of establishing “Mountains” of Christian authority in the world, and of getting the Ten Commandments back on the walls of every public space. All concerns that Jesus never spoke to.

This is the persistent temptation of the church. Constantine wanted to use Christianity to unite his far-flung empire. Pope after pope used the threat of excommunication to bring European princes under their control. Luther affirmed state violence to control angry, oppressed peasants. Calvin had Michael Servetus, one of his theological opponents, beheaded and burned at the stake—and wrote extensively about how this was justified Biblically.²⁰Theologians often refer to Luther and Calvin as the Magisterial Reformers. This is not a compliment. It means that while they were reformers theologically, they had no compunction about using the magistrates, the civil authorities, to enforce their ideas. This marriage has brought injustice and oppression into every corner of history. This is the sole reason Europe is so profoundly unChristian after having been the heart of Christianity for a thousand years. It’s one of the many reasons indigenous communities around the world cannot trust the intentions of the Christians. It is not cynical or malicious to note this historical pattern and worry about the current direction of the church.

Be clear: Constantine was not the problem in the fourth century, and modern leaders who wish to leverage the church for their purposes aren’t the problem either. The problem is Christians who don’t believe the other-centered, co-suffering way of Jesus is sufficient, and as a result, are willing to compromise the central tenets of their faith to gain access to power.²¹Take the time to read Dostoyevsky’s scathing commentary on this point in the scene called The Grand Inquisitor from The Brothers Karamazov. You can read it in many places, and there’s even a version on YouTube.

Whether we are thinking about the Roman Empire in the fourth century or the American Empire today, we must be clear on this. Empire is gonna empire. The powerful and famous will reliably do what is necessary to protect their position. Rather than supporting and empowering the other-centered, co-suffering way of Jesus, they will almost always default to the ways of self-centered, ego-defending ambition.

Our work is simple: We don’t give in. We see self-centered, ego-defending ambition for what it is and turn away from it—even when it offers power, position, and security for people like us. Faith in Jesus means trusting Jesus’ way, even when it costs. Baptizing the ways and means of power to feel safe or strong means we deny the power of our own baptism.

The way of the cross is never easy. But this path that we are called to walk is rooted in trust. We trust the character of God as revealed in Jesus, and we follow not just his ideas but his methods. We walk the way of Jesus, trusting that in the gentle way of love, we will be part of God’s work to remake the world.

• 1
  Flavius Valerius Constantinus, Emperor of Rome from 272 -337 CE
• 2
  The Jewish scripture already existed as a collection, and the books that make up the Christian Testament were all already circulating individually long before he came to power.
• 3
  The earliest Christian Canon, or list of books that ought to be counted as scripture, is likely Marcion’s list, which dates to 140 CE. Origin, one of the Eastern Fathers, collected a list of books that the church in his area considered scripture in the late second century. Athanasius, perhaps the most important early Christian theologian, listed the books of scripture as canon in 367 CE. His list is essentially the same as the modern list.
• 4
  There is much too much written evidence to footnote here. Suffice it to say that the issue of the nature of Jesus’ divinity was one of the primary matters of discussion for the first four hundred years of the church.
• 5
  In fact, he leaned toward the Arian position, as did many of the Bishops. With all the power he wielded, it seems perhaps miraculous that the Nicene creed ended up being what it was.
• 6
  Jordan Woods coined this label in a 2013 paper. Wood, “Assession the ‘Constantinian Shift.’”
• 7
  Read more, including the edit, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Serdica
• 8
  More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge
• 9
  More on this important document and the text here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan.
• 10
  Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, 107
• 11
  Gonzales suspects this: “For Constantine, the Christian God was a very powerful being who would support him as long as he favored the faithful. Therefore, when Constantine enacted laws in favor of Christianity, and when he had churches built, what he sought was not the goodwill of Christians, but rather the goodwill of their God.” Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation., 122.
• 12
  Read the letter here: https://honorshame.com/a-revealing-letter-about-ancient-christianity/
• 13
  Written in 325 CE, accepted in final form at the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE
• 14
  Arianism, named after Arius, was a theological stream of early Christianity that believed Christ was not co-eternal with the Father but a holy being, created before time. Although in the literature of the time, it was pretty common for the word “Arian” to be flung around and applied to nearly anyone with divergent theology.
• 15
  It’s true! Women elders were banned at the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE. You don’t ban something that’s not happening. Also, notably, this same council required that priests rather than laypeople serve the Eucharist. This is the professionalization of the church. See the written canons of the council here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm
• 16
  “Selections from Eusebius, Life of Constantine,” in World History Commons, https://worldhistorycommons.org/selections-eusebius-life-constantine.
• 17
  “Thus then the God of all, the Supreme Governor of the whole universe, by his own will appointed Constantine, the descendant of so renowned a parent, to be prince and sovereign.”
• 18
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2504.htm
• 19
  The Book of James calls out Christians who give the best church seats to the wealthy. Apparently, this was a problem even before the imperial church existed.
• 20
  Theologians often refer to Luther and Calvin as the Magisterial Reformers. This is not a compliment. It means that while they were reformers theologically, they had no compunction about using the magistrates, the civil authorities, to enforce their ideas.
• 21
  Take the time to read Dostoyevsky’s scathing commentary on this point in the scene called The Grand Inquisitor from The Brothers Karamazov. You can read it in many places, and there’s even a version on YouTube.